NPR discusses how the millenial generation is more positive.
Um, ok. I guess that is not hard to believe. After all, youth is typically not yet as jaded about life and experiences as their elders. Not quite sure why this should be such a headline but it seems that some people are rather surprised by it. "OMG! Young people seem to be more positive?! Who knew?!"
But there were a couple of things that got me about the piece. First was the pervasive belief that many of them were overwhelmingly liberal (OH NO, the "L" word!) and have a positive feeling about government. I guess that seems reasonable when it is many in their generation who helped to elect the nation's first black president - an action that few who grew up during the turbulent 60's felt would happen in their lifetime. It also seems reasonable when one considers that it is the young who often change the world. The older one becomes, the more likely they are to be entrenched in their ways as well as to maintain the status quo. The young, on the other hand, tend to not only see many of the wrong and the iniquities of the world (along with their elders) but are far more inclined to want to work hard to make changes to help improve it. If we recognize that liberal, in a political context, is the antonym of conservative (more resistant to change), it seems rather obvious that they would be more liberal. Indeed, it would be much more surprising if they were not liberal.
The idea that they are more trusting of government is interesting. Earlier generations have been less trusting of government. For those who grew up during the Nixon era or the Cold War, a lack of faith in government seems completely reasonable. It is surprising that those who grew up during the Clinton and Bush 43 presidencies would have more positive feelings regarding government. But the generation that voted for hope and change may still be hopeful that things can change for the better, thus the positive feelings regarding government.
There is also a sense among this generation that things will work out for the best in the end. Despite the turmoil that exists in their lives today - high unemployment or underemployment, two wars, rancorous partisanship, less religious beliefs (though they do not apparently lack for spiritual beliefs) - they have faith that things will improve. Perhaps they have faith that the government will be there to support them and make sure that they are taken care of in the future - in spite of the overwhelming evidence of history that may serve as a warning otherwise. People and civilizations have survived, governments have not. But for those who are too young to remember and unwilling to learn the lessons of history, perhaps this is not an unusual attitude.
After all, history does have a tendency to repeat itself.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
An artist's responsibility
The job of an artist is to create things that can entertain, enlighten and even provoke people. To be an artist is seemingly not difficult. Everything that exists in the world today is a form of art. Not just the books and the movies and music and pictures that we normally imagine at the term "artist", but the very objects that surround us every day. From the highest technology to the most mundane of objects - all are a form of art that creates the fabric within which we all exist. From this point of view, it would be easy to believe that everyone is an artist.
But those are not the artists to which I refer. No, the artists to which I refer are those who deliberately set out to create the objects which others recognize as art. It is they who set out to inspire with their creations. It is they who imagine the future and create it with their hands. It is they who challenge the beliefs and understanding by which we live. Indeed, it is that ability to challenge the recognized order which allows the artists to transcend the mundane and breach immortality.
This does not mean that an artist should deliberately seek to be provocative simply for the sake of being provocative. Instead, an artist should recognize the world for what it is and what it could be - and even what it should be. Sometimes, the artist's view will be uplifting, bright and spiritual - a recognition of the positive in a life that often seems harsh. Others can be so dark as condemn themselves to despair - wallowing in a negativity that is so pervasive as to block out all else. But it is the manner in which these artists convey these emotions that becomes the context upon which they are ultimately judged.
The responsibility of the artist is to convert their ideas into a framework that satisfies them and can still give their audience the opportunity and desire to reflect on the ideas presented to them by the artists. Whereas the majority of people live their lives in a struggle to achieve the goals that may be important to them individually, artists feel compelled to seek answers that can then be offered to a much larger audience beyond themselves. And if answers are not readily available, then an acceptable alternative is the opportunity to provide insight that may differ from the common. Frankly, the common is not acceptable for an artist and is considered a failure if that is the best that they can offer. By the same token, however, to be unusual is not a sign of success. The artists work must have meaning and offer a different perspective. It is often a fine line.
But then again, artistic works are all subjective and that, in the end, is the final truth for an artist.
But those are not the artists to which I refer. No, the artists to which I refer are those who deliberately set out to create the objects which others recognize as art. It is they who set out to inspire with their creations. It is they who imagine the future and create it with their hands. It is they who challenge the beliefs and understanding by which we live. Indeed, it is that ability to challenge the recognized order which allows the artists to transcend the mundane and breach immortality.
This does not mean that an artist should deliberately seek to be provocative simply for the sake of being provocative. Instead, an artist should recognize the world for what it is and what it could be - and even what it should be. Sometimes, the artist's view will be uplifting, bright and spiritual - a recognition of the positive in a life that often seems harsh. Others can be so dark as condemn themselves to despair - wallowing in a negativity that is so pervasive as to block out all else. But it is the manner in which these artists convey these emotions that becomes the context upon which they are ultimately judged.
The responsibility of the artist is to convert their ideas into a framework that satisfies them and can still give their audience the opportunity and desire to reflect on the ideas presented to them by the artists. Whereas the majority of people live their lives in a struggle to achieve the goals that may be important to them individually, artists feel compelled to seek answers that can then be offered to a much larger audience beyond themselves. And if answers are not readily available, then an acceptable alternative is the opportunity to provide insight that may differ from the common. Frankly, the common is not acceptable for an artist and is considered a failure if that is the best that they can offer. By the same token, however, to be unusual is not a sign of success. The artists work must have meaning and offer a different perspective. It is often a fine line.
But then again, artistic works are all subjective and that, in the end, is the final truth for an artist.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Just some random thoughts
Several weeks (heck, maybe a month) since my last ideas. I had meant to write up some more thoughts on the ideas of racism that continue to pervade the US - not to mention its subsequent assignment to the level of abortion and gay rights in the political spectrum. I was taken to task by one reader (who deliberately did not read my recent missives) that my points were all one-sided against Democrats. So I was going to write up a scathing editorial on comments by both Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson but it almost seemed repetitive since they'd been taken to task by pretty much everyone else. So what would be the fun in piling on? Besides, since all Republicans are racist by political definition, to re-state the "obvious" would simply be rhetorical. Right? (Oh, that is also rhetorical.) Of course, it's hard to raise up a sense of indignity about such a serious subject when your leader in the Senate and an ardent supporter on MSNBC are both making "innocuous" comments that, had they been uttered by Republicans, would be railed against as racist. Or at least it should be. But I guess hypocrisy only applies to Republicans on the sensitive subject of race. Democrats believe in diversity - of colors. And only because all colors other than white should "obviously" be Democratic and, if not, then clearly they are racial turncoats. Nope, no hypocrisy there...
But there have been so many other things happening in the world that have merited attention from the media. Yes, in the last several weeks, I have received "Breaking News" emails from CNN on important subjects such as the charges against Michael Jackson's doctor for killing him (inadvertently) and the tragic death of Brittany Murphy (who?). But continued attacks against the establishment in Pakistan, relief efforts in Haiti (well, ok, there has been some news on that, mostly about those evil white religious fanatics who tried to kidnap a bunch of kids before being stopped at the border of the Dominican Republic), the continuing tragicomedy of healthcare reform (whose definition apparently still remains amorphous at best to the general public) and deteriorating relations between the US and China (among a great many other equally important subjects) remain missing - or at best grossly underreported - from the news. I guess it is far more important to sell commercial time for the "news shows" (and yes, I lose that term very loosely - I would be hard-pressed to consider Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck as news shows instead of editorials loosely related to truth and facts) which means that people will only pay attention when a blond-haired teenager has gone missing (preferably in some third-world vacation destination) rather than facts that are far more likely to impact one's life such as the state of the economy or legislation that has a more direct effect on how one may live.
I think I should just carry a soapbox with me sometimes...
And, to live to my motto of being completely random, can anyone explain to me why socialism is bad (in the US)? And then explain why capitalism is bad? Rationally? Without rhetorical flourish? Thanks.
But there have been so many other things happening in the world that have merited attention from the media. Yes, in the last several weeks, I have received "Breaking News" emails from CNN on important subjects such as the charges against Michael Jackson's doctor for killing him (inadvertently) and the tragic death of Brittany Murphy (who?). But continued attacks against the establishment in Pakistan, relief efforts in Haiti (well, ok, there has been some news on that, mostly about those evil white religious fanatics who tried to kidnap a bunch of kids before being stopped at the border of the Dominican Republic), the continuing tragicomedy of healthcare reform (whose definition apparently still remains amorphous at best to the general public) and deteriorating relations between the US and China (among a great many other equally important subjects) remain missing - or at best grossly underreported - from the news. I guess it is far more important to sell commercial time for the "news shows" (and yes, I lose that term very loosely - I would be hard-pressed to consider Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck as news shows instead of editorials loosely related to truth and facts) which means that people will only pay attention when a blond-haired teenager has gone missing (preferably in some third-world vacation destination) rather than facts that are far more likely to impact one's life such as the state of the economy or legislation that has a more direct effect on how one may live.
I think I should just carry a soapbox with me sometimes...
And, to live to my motto of being completely random, can anyone explain to me why socialism is bad (in the US)? And then explain why capitalism is bad? Rationally? Without rhetorical flourish? Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)